Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/02/2002 03:40 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
April 2, 2002
3:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Gene Therriault, Chair
Senator Randy Phillips, Vice Chair
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 30
Relating to an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
prohibiting desecration of the Flag of the United States.
MOVED HJR 30 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 20(MLV)
Relating to declaring September 11, 2002, as a Day of
Remembrance.
MOVED SCS CSHCR 20(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 162
"An Act relating to absences from the state under the longevity
bonus program."
HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 262
"An Act relating to accounting for and appropriations of receipts
from fees collected by the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development for certain inspections and for certain plumbing and
electrical worker certificates of fitness; establishing a
building safety account; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED HB 262 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 331
"An Act relating to appointment of persons to positions that
require confirmation by the legislature; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
HJR 30 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/26/02
HCR 20 - See State Affairs dated 3/19/02 and 3/26/02
HB 162 - See HESS minutes dated 4/20/01 and 1/28/02 and
State Affairs minutes dated 3/26/02
HB 262 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 3/21/02
HB 331 - See State Affairs minutes dated 3/21/02
WITNESS REGISTER
Gary Berry
9070 North Douglas Highway
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 30
Gene Dau
P.O. Box 20995
Juneau, AK 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 30
Jim Routsala
Commander of VFW Post 559
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 30
Doug Letch
Alaska State Capitol, Room 428
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HCR 20
Representative Gretchen Guess
Alaska State Capitol, Room 112
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 162
Alison Elgee
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Administration
PO Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162
Rosalee T. Walker
1220 Glacier Ave.
Juneau, AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 162
Amy Erickson
Aide to Representative Lisa Murkowski
Alaska State Capitol, Room 408
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 262
Remond Henderson
Director
Department of Labor & Workforce
Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 262
Rebecca Nance Gamez
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce
Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 262
Linda Sylvester
Aide to Representative Kott
Alaska State Capitol, Room 204
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-17, SIDE A
CHAIRMAN GENE THERRIAULT called the Senate State Affairs
Committee meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. Present were Senators
Davis, Stevens, Phillips and Chairman Therriault.
HJR 30-DESECRATION OF U.S. FLAG
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT announced the prime sponsor, Representative
Pete Kott, was not available and he asked Senator Phillips to
introduce the resolution.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS explained this was a resolution requesting
the United States Congress to pass House Joint Resolution 36 or
Senate Joint Resolution 7, which would prohibit the physical
desecration of the United States flag.
GARY BARRY testified he is a past department commander for the
American Legion and they have spent the last five or six years
trying to get this measure passed through the U.S. Congress. He
expressed strong support for the resolution. The flag of the
United States of America should be treated with respect.
GENE DAU, Legislative Officer for Veteran's of Foreign Wars (VFW)
Post 5559, testified in support of the resolution. He was taught
to respect and protect the U.S. flag and sees no reason for
people to treat it any differently today.
JIM ROUTSALA testified in support of HJR 30; his feelings are
similar to Mr. Dau's. He is the Commander of VFW Taku Post 5559
and is representing the 204 members who also support HJR 30. The
U.S. flag is a symbol of America and should not be desecrated.
There was no further testimony.
There was no proposed CS and no amendments. There was one zero
fiscal note.
SENATOR PHILLIPS made a motion to move HJR 30 and attached fiscal
note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, HJR 30 moved from committee.
HCR 20-SEPT 11 DAY OF REMEMBRANCE
DOUG LETCH, Aide to Representative Gary Stevens, testified the
resolution was introduced to the committee several weeks ago.
Since then they worked with committee aide, Joe Balash, and agree
that the suggested changes are acceptable.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT stated there is no prepared committee
substitute (CS) but they do have the suggested language changes.
MR. LETCH stated Representative Stevens thought the ideas were
good.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for a motion to adopt the proposed
language so it could be incorporated into a CS.
SENATOR PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt the following language as
amendment 1:
Delete all material from page 1, line 15 to page 2,
line 5
Insert the following in its place
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, at 9:43 a.m. Eastern
the west side of the Pentagon building in Washington,
D.C., causing the loss of all 64 lives aboard; and
Daylight Time, hijacked American Airlines Flight 77
crashed into
WHEREAS, 125 service members, employees, and contract
workers at the Pentagon building also lost their lives
as a result of the crash of American Airlines Flight
77; and
WHEREAS, the passengers and crew onboard United
Airlines Flight 93, aware of the earlier attacks on the
World Trade Center towers, refused to stand by and
allow the Boeing 757 to be used in the same manner; and
WHEREAS, passengers and crew onboard United Airlines
Flight 93 put a plan into action to stop the hijacking
signaled by the now famous words, Are you guys ready:
Let's roll"; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern
Daylight Time, all 45 lives aboard United Airlines
Flight 93 were lost when the plane crashed in
southwestern Pennsylvania; and
There being no objection, the language was incorporated into a
State Affairs CS.
There was one zero fiscal note.
SENATOR PHILLIPS noted November 11 was originally called
Remembrance Day. That was changed to Armistice Day and it is now
celebrated as Veteran's Day.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR DAVIS made a motion to move amended HCR 20 and attached
fiscal note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, SCS CSHCR 20(STA) moved from committee.
HB 162-ABSENCES UNDER LONGEVITY BONUS PROGRAM
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT announced it was his intent to discuss the
bill, but not to move the bill from committee that day.
REPRESENTATIVE GRETCHEN GUESS introduced HB 162 on behalf of
Representative Fred Dyson. She had been working on the
legislation with him.
The bill does two things to the Longevity Bonus Program.
1. It extends the paid leave absences from 30 to 60 days. The
reason for that change is there are people who receive the
bonus and cannot visit their families out of state because
economics require that they drive and there isn't enough
time to leave, visit and return in just 30 days.
2. It would change the unpaid leave time from 90 days to five
years. Individuals who leave the state would not receive the
bonus while they were gone, but they would be eligible to
receive it again if they returned within five years.
The Department of Administration suggested the five year time
period to help them clear their books. House members discussed
changing the unpaid five-year sabbatical but they didn't act.
They understand Senator Halford is interested in reducing the
five years and they are receptive to a change. A change should
not impact the fiscal note. The fiscal note is negative because
people are currently flying back to Alaska to remain eligible for
a month and then flying back out. Extending the unpaid leave
saves the state money and provides seniors additional
flexibility.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked her to explain the current bill
language on page 2, lines 18 through 23.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS explained it defines an unqualified person
as someone who would be eligible for the longevity bonus but they
were not qualified because they were incarcerated.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT restated that those individuals would meet
all the criteria but, because they are incarcerated, they do not
get the bonus. He asked whether they would receive the bonus once
they are paroled.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS deferred the question to the Department of
Administration.
ALYSON ELGEE, Deputy Commissioner with the Department of
Administration, stated they made several assumptions in the
preparation of the fiscal note. They have data that enabled them
to develop a cost estimate for extending the paid leave from 30
to 60 days. They looked at a year's records and figured the cost
to pay those people who had been absent for over 30 days an
additional one-month check.
When they looked at the provisions for allowing extended absences
they had to make some guesses about what people's behavior might
be. To estimate the cost savings, and they believe one will
occur, they assumed that an average of 10 percent of the
longevity bonus recipients would be absent one month longer than
they currently are today thereby forgoing one month's check. This
would result in an estimated savings to the state of $435,000 a
year and the estimate may well be conservative.
The program was closed in 1997 and all recipients are 70 years or
older. Loosening some of the provisions would allow those seniors
much appreciated flexibility so they can spend more time visiting
with family and friends outside the state. There are numerous
anecdotal stories about seniors who gave up their bonus when they
moved from the state only to find that they didn't like living
out of Alaska. However, by the time they returned to the state
they were no longer eligible for the longevity bonus even though
they may have spent a majority of their life in Alaska. This
would help such cases. As Representative Guess stated, they
selected the five-year limitation so they could purge their rolls
and have an idea of their potential clientele for the program.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked how many individuals currently receive the
longevity bonus.
MS. ELGEE replied that, on average, they issue between 18,000 and
19,000 longevity bonus checks per month. There are always more
people who are eligible, but they are absent for some reason.
SENATOR PHILLIPS then asked about the breakdown for the different
payment amounts.
MS. ELGEE replied the information is available, but she would
have to provide it later.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked her to provide the average state residency
for the bonus recipients.
MS. ELGEE said that information is not readily available.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said his reason for asking the questions is that
he remembers that 10 to 20 percent of the recipients had lived in
the state two years or less.
MS. ELGEE said she would check on information that relates to
length of residency.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT announced he was interested in that
information as well. It is frustrating to him that there are some
who got into the program with minimum residency while some who
lived here for 50 years, but weren't quite old enough to qualify
before the program was closed get nothing. If this legislation
passed, those that qualified with minimum residency would be able
to leave the state for up to five years then return and start
receiving the bonus again. In a lot of people's opinion, they
shouldn't have gotten the benefit in the first place.
MS. ELGEE pointed out that when seniors are out of state for more
than 30 days, for any reason, they are not paid.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said Senator Halford has some concerns over
the necessity of section 2, which is the five-year cutoff. He
asked for an explanation of how that section helps clear the
roll.
MS. ELGEE replied they wanted some time frame within which they
could clean up the longevity bonus rolls. When people leave the
state they are suspended from the program, but they may stay
suspended forever. If they never hear from people again, they
have no way of knowing whether they are deceased or if they are
gone from the state forever. Currently they project that the last
bonus check will be paid in approximately 2030. At that time,
they don't want to have 10,000 people on the roll even if they
are only paying two of them. They were hoping to be able to purge
the rolls along the way, but five years was subjective.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked what the shortest workable period would
be.
MS. ELGEE said one to two years is reasonable. One of the current
problems is that medical absences are allowed, but there is no
provision for an accompanying spouse.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there wasn't a provision allowing a
one-year absence from the program after which the individual
could re-qualify.
MS. ELGEE replied that was an amendment that Senator Tim Kelly
sponsored several years ago. It provides for a one year unpaid
sabbatical once every five years.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether she had other examples of how
the 30 day limitation is unduly burdensome.
MS. ELGEE replied that the House HESS Committee developed that
provision.
ROSALEE WALKER, President of the local AARP and board member of
the Older Persons Action Group (OPAG), testified in support of HB
162. She asked that members pay attention to the negative fiscal
note. The bill requires a simple modification, but it would mean
a lot to the recipients. The program was started as a reward for
a specific group, but there was a lawsuit and that's when people
started moving to Alaska to receive the bonus. Because of this,
legislators decided to phase the program out over time.
Nonetheless, the bonus is a very important part of many seniors'
income.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said the court case did explode the
participating pool for the bonus program so the Legislature had
to take action. At the time that they were considering change,
some of his constituency that were long time Alaskans expressed
an interest in doing away with the program altogether rather than
grandfathering in people who had been in Alaska for just two or
three years. The proposed changes would give those newcomers
increased flexibility for travel and that won't sit well with
some long term Alaskan seniors. That needs to be factored into
the decision to make changes.
SENATOR DAVIS asked Ms. Walker about her thoughts on the five-
year term.
MS. WALKER said she hadn't really considered that point because
if she leaves for two years she won't come back. Alaska has been
her home for 35 years, but if she were gone for two years it
would be for an extreme reason. Five years is certainly more than
fair and she could personally accept less.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said it's important to keep in mind that
there is currently a one-year non-paid sabbatical allowed every
five years. The proposed section 2 would allow a continuous
absence above and beyond what is allowed by the sabbatical.
He asked Representative Guess to comment on when they decided to
extend paid absences from 30 to 60 days and whether it was part
of the original idea.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS replied the 30 to 60 day change came first
and was the result of a constituent request. Her research
indicated that the 30 day limit was a subjective decision. The
difficulty is the free rider problem, the people that qualified
with just two or three years of residency. Everyone wants to
provide flexibility to the seniors that lived in Alaska in the
1940s, 1950s and 1960s, but along with those come the newcomers.
Because of the court decision, it's unclear what can be done
about that.
The bill began with the 30 to 60 day change and the department
asked for the change from the 90 day allowed absence to a five
year unpaid sabbatical. This would provide more flexibility to
seniors who were flying into and then back out of Alaska to
maintain their eligibility. This is the part of the bill that
provides the overall negative fiscal note. It's a way to save the
state money and provide seniors more flexibility at the same
time.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether the original bill had just the
30 to 60 day change so there was a cost of implementation.
REPRESENTATIVE GUESS replied that in working with the department
on the 30 to 60 day change they suggested the 90 day to five year
change. When they put those together, the result was a negative
fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT closed testimony on HB 162 and held the bill
in committee.
HB 262-BUILDING SAFETY ACCOUNT
AMY ERICKSON, staff to Representative Murkowski, read the
following into the record:
House Bill 262 is a fees-for-service measure
establishing a building safety account to allow the
Department of Labor to collect fees to support its
mechanical inspections program and, more importantly,
to catch up on a serious and sizeable backlog of
elevator and boiler inspections.
Currently the mechanical inspection section generates
just over $1 million in general funds and is allotted
about $695,000. HB 262 allows the department to collect
fees and gives the authority to utilize the money
generated for those fees. The fees range from $40 to
about $105 depending on the type of vessel.
Certificates of fitness for both electricians and
plumbers also generate fees. The sizeable backlog of
boiler and elevator inspections is a growing safety
concern. The boiler backlog has reached about 6,000 and
for elevators it's about 350.
Instantly the Americans with Disabilities Act has
caused the number of elevators to roughly double in the
last eight years. Passage of HB 262 will give the
mechanical inspections program the ability to restore
three new inspectors to the program and to generate
enough funds to eliminate the backlog of boilers and
elevators in approximately two years.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT verified that this wouldn't increase fees and
would not impose new fees on classes of work that currently have
not had fees. It's simply allocating the funds that are generated
from that program.
AMY ERICKSON agreed and said Remond Henderson could speak to the
fiscal note.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted that general fund dollars could be used
now to restore three new inspectors to the program, but this
provides a tracking mechanism.
AMY ERICKSON agreed.
REMOND HENDERSON, Director of Administrative Services for the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, said he was there
to testify on the fiscal note and answer questions on it. He
could answer program questions to a limited degree.
The fiscal note requests that positions be established for two
boiler inspectors and one elevator inspector. In FY 03 those
three inspectors would cost $234,600 for a ten month period while
their inspections would generate $242,800. In FY 04 they show the
additional cost for extra two months of $41,400 and the
additional two months of revenue generated of $49,700. FY 07
shows a reduction of one position because they expect to be
caught up with the backlog of inspections by that time.
The Fund Source section of the note shows a reduction of the
general funds that are currently in the budget by $345,700, takes
away the general program receipts, and replaces those with the
new Building Safety Account fund that is established.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted the building safety account has a fund
source code.
MR. HENDERSON said the 1172 code was just established.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if it was already established or
whether it would be established by passage of the bill.
MR. HENDERSON said it would be established by passage of HB 262.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether this wouldn't be a general fund
building safety account.
MR. HENDERSON replied it is showing a reduction in general funds
because that is where funds are currently budgeted and they don't
currently have authority for a Building Safety Account.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT wanted confirmation that the Building Safety
Account would be a general fund account.
MR. HENDERSON confirmed it would be a general fund account.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether it would show up as general
fund spending and take separate legislative action to put it into
the non general fund column.
MR. HENDERSON explained it wouldn't. In setting up the account it
appears as a non-general fund account so it is technically off
budget.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said Mr. Balash pointed out that section of
the bill to him and he understands.
SIDE B
4:25 p.m.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked where the request for the three
additional positions figured into the Governor's submitted
budget.
MR. HENDERSON replied those positions are requested in the
operating budget as general fund increments. They aren't
completely comfortable with that and prefer this method. With the
passage of the bill, this is the proper vehicle to show that
those positions would generate the additional proceeds to pay for
themselves. He agreed that there are funds that are generated
now, but they don't have the authority to spend those.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked Ms. Erickson who requested the bill.
MS. ERICKSON responded it was the Department of Labor.
SENATOR PHILLIPS then asked Mr. Henderson whether the department
contacted the Governor to introduce the bill.
MR. HENDERSON thought Representative Murkowski introduced the
bill at the request of the Governor's Office and the Department
of Labor.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether the Governor could do it himself.
MR. HENDERSON said he probably could have.
REBECCA NANCE GAMEZ, the Deputy Commissioner for the Department
of Labor, said Commissioner Flanagan discussed this with the
Governor, received his approval and then approached
Representative Murkowski to introduce the legislation.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT commented this is not an unusual course of
action.
There was no prepared committee substitute and no amendments were
offered.
SENATOR DAVIS made a motion to move HB 262 and attached fiscal
note from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, HB 262 moved from committee.
HB 331-PRESENTMENT OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES
LINDA SYLVESTER, legislative aide to Representative Pete Kott,
introduced HB 331 and read the preamble to AS 39.05.070 that
clarifies how presentments of the Governor are handled:
The purpose of this section of statute is to provide
the procedural uniformity in the exercise of appointive
powers conferred by the Legislature to eliminate,
insofar as possible, recess or interim appointments
except in the event of death, resignation, inability to
act or other removal from office and the exercise,
insofar as possible, of appointive powers only when the
Legislature is in session.
Following is the sponsor summary:
HB 331 eliminates ambiguities in AS 30.05.080 making it
clear that presentment of the governor's appointees to
boards and commissions may only occur during regular
sessions of the legislature. This bill eliminates the
potential for confirmation sessions occurring during
special sessions and it also reconciles potentially
conflicting language regarding the timing of the
appointee's presentation.
This issue arose at the end of the 2001 regular
session, following the failed confirmation bid of a
Game Board appointee. In response to that event, under
paragraph (3), the governor made a new appointment and
presented the name to the Legislature within 20 days
following notification of the failed nomination. As to
that Game Board vacancy, the Governor was correct under
paragraph (3) in appointing and presenting the name,
but since the regular session of the Legislature had
adjourned, under paragraph (1), that presentment was
ineffective.
The waters become muddy because the 20-day requirement
(that the governor has to name a candidate following a
failed confirmation) of paragraph (3) is a direct
conflict with paragraph (1), which states that only
presentment that occurs during a regular session
constitutes presentment. To further complicate the
issue, AS 39.050.080 by:
· Removing the 20-day requirement in paragraph (3) and
keeping the requirement of paragraph (1) stating
that only presentment during a regular session is
valid;
· Inserting as appropriate throughout the section,
"regular,"
· Removing "within five calendar days" from the latter
part of paragraph (1) because the five-day
presentment requirement in paragraph (1) is just as
problematical as the 20-day presentment requirement
since the fifth day could be outside the regular
session even if the appointment were made during the
regular session.
MS. SYLVESTER explained the following changes:
On page 2, line 3, after "expire" insert "on or before" and
on line 6, delete the words "within five calendar days after
the appointment is made," and insert "immediately." The five
day presentment requirement was problematic because the
fifth day could be outside the regular session even if the
appointment was made during the regular session.
On page 2, lines 8-9 delete, "The deadline may be extended
by the Legislature by the approval of a concurrent
resolution." and insert "immediately." It is
unconstitutional to modify a statute by concurrent
resolution; a statute can only be modified by adoption of
another statute.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked whether Legislative Legal said that
point was unworkable.
MS. SYLVESTER said they have something that says it is unclear
whether or not an appointee can be confirmed during the special
session.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT restated his question concerning the
constitutionality of extending the deadline by passage of a
concurrent resolution.
MS. SYLVESTER replied that was unconstitutional.
On page 2, lines 24-28, the following is deleted: "The new
appointment shall be presented for confirmation to the
Legislature within 20 calendar days following receipt by the
governor of the legislature's notification of its refusal to
confirm the prior appointment."
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT recapped using a hypothetical situation that
might occur at the end of a regular legislative session if an
appointee is turned down and the regular session is over the
following day. The Governor would make a locum tenens appointment
and the powers for that position would come under paragraph (4),
page 3, lines 5-25. When the Legislature next convened in regular
session eight or nine months later, the Governor would present
his appointee within the first 30 days and the Legislature would
confirm or deny the appointment.
He noted the board member would be participating and making
decisions for almost a year after which they might be denied the
appointment.
MS. SYLVESTER said the Governor's Office proposed inserting
language saying that the Governor would refrain from making
appointments within the last fourteen days of the regular
legislative session. They believe this is problematic because the
Legislature wouldn't have the authority to limit the Governor and
he could simply ignore it or the law would be unconstitutional.
The other problem is that if the Governor does make a presentment
to the Legislature during the last few days of a regular session
the Legislature could act if it weren't limited by the fourteen
day rule. Additionally, on page 3, lines 3 and 4 the statute
stipulates that if the Legislature does not act by the end of the
regular session that is tantamount to declination. The have added
the word "regular" before the word "session" here and every place
"session" occurs to make it very clear that it takes place during
the regular session.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for the administration's position on
the bill in general.
MS. SYLVESTER replied they liked the fact that it was a clean-up
bill, but they wanted the fourteen days. They weren't very
receptive to the word, "immediate."
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT wanted to take time to think about the
implications of the legislation, but asked Ms. Sylvester to
assure Representative Kott that he didn't have a specific problem
with the bill.
HB 331 was held in committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Senate
State Affairs Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|